Posted
by
timothy
on Monday June 13, 2011 @07:11PM
from the chrome's-not-bad-at-all dept.

jbrodkin writes "Canonical founder Mark Shuttleworth is a big fan of Google Chrome, and says the browser could replace the standard Firefox in future versions of Ubuntu Linux. 'We looked at it closely in the last cycle and the decision was to stick with Firefox,' he says. But the work that Google is doing with Chrome OS — essentially the Chrome browser on top of Linux — is potentially leading to a future in which 'Chrome on Ubuntu and Chrome on Linux is a better experience than Chrome on any other platform [i.e. Windows and Mac].' In a wide-ranging interview, Shuttleworth also discussed why he spent $20 million to become a space tourist but doesn't own a smartphone, controversies over Linux and Unity, the future of Ubuntu tablets, and says the move toward putting personal data in the cloud is 'a little scary.'"

Right. I tried NotScript for a day and couldn't stand it, nowhere near as functional as it is on firefox. I run almost exclusively in deny-all mode with only temporary enabling on specific websites for specific cases, so its not like I use all the fancy stuff in noscript either.

I've also tried Ghostery for Chrome (from the same guys who do Ghostery for FireFox) and, due to the sucky webkit api, it is totally random what it blocks. At least it tells you what it blocked and what it let through, but hit reload on a page and you'll get a different set of what's been blocked and what's not.

Chrome is just not functional enough for anyone who gives a damn about personal security online.

Chrome is good enough for checking the Mail/News/Comics, But you should use 2 browsers anyway. One where you want to be tracked, and one where you don't. I don't expect Chrome to work with Tor, but sometimes I need to be able to have one big account so i can be tied in to automatically download the app i clicked on to my phone. And I'm sure as hell not going to use IE.

Make that at least 2 browsers. I use Chromium (Google search/maps/etc.), Firefox (general browsing), and Opera (shopping and banking). All have privacy and security set to not-quite-paranoid levels, with history, cookies, and flash objects completely wiped per session and occasionally wiped within a session. I don't use Chrome, and I only use IE on the windows PC at work where it's almost mandatory for intranet stuff.

Make that at least 2 browsers. I use Chromium (Google search/maps/etc.), Firefox (general browsing), and Opera (shopping and banking). All have privacy and security set to not-quite-paranoid levels, with history, cookies, and flash objects completely wiped per session and occasionally wiped within a session. I don't use Chrome, and I only use IE on the windows PC at work where it's almost mandatory for intranet stuff.

No, it isn't, because the noscript-like tool is not reliable and it gets in your way, and I won't surf ANY site any more without protection, lest I become clickjacked, or simply load a malicious banner ad.

There's also this version [google.com], the only difference being that it has a password hard-coded into it so you don't need to futz around with configuration files to get it working. It does open up a security hole in that web sites could theoretically allow web sites to read your NotScripts settings, but I don't really care that a website might find out I have google-analytics.com blocked.

I've never understood the carelevel for what comes default so much. I forget what the default browser is in debian, but it isn't firefox/iceweasel, at least it wasn't. not konq either.. uh.. e-something. And yet i have no problems getting firefox running more or less instantly upon install.

apt-get install browser-you-like; done

Nor do i see a purpose for *buntu, surely plain ubuntu has other WMs available through apt, no?

Epiphany. The world's most useless browser. Basically, it was Galeon with all its features removed, and then replaced with a silly tag-based bookmarking system that is so unintuitive to use that no-one would ever bother with it.

Well why not make the ubuntu installer ask whether you'd like kde or gnome or xfce instead of managing 8 *buntus...? Seems so terribly redundant.

If you're catering to folk that are too derp to apt-get install firefox, they could install 5 browsers by default and pop up a pretty window asking them which they'd like to try, in the age of terabyte HDDs.

Actually, Ubuntu has a very easy little store interface that anyone can install browsers from.

But the point is that you're trying to bring in users who are barely aware that there are keys to the left and right of the spacebar. "Oh look, would you like KDE or Gnome or XFCE or Afterstep or Sawfish or Blackbox or CDE or..." Most of those the average person can't pronounce, let alone remember the name of or have any clue about. And quite frankly, the only difference I can tell between KDE and Gnome is that

Well why not make the ubuntu installer ask whether you'd like kde or gnome or xfce instead of managing 8 *buntus...? Seems so terribly redundant.

Possibly because putting all the desktop environments on one CD would take up too much space. The WUBI installer (that installs Ubuntu with its boot partition in a file on an NTFS partition that can be installed and removed from Windows with Add/Remove programs [note, its still a dual boot, not a "runs under Windows" system like, e.g., Portable Ubuntu]), which grab

What do you mean by the distro? When I install *BSD, I usually use the boot-only ISO, which is typically about 5MB. The base system is usually about 300MB, maybe less depending on the particular configuration (OpenBSD on CF in my firewall is a lot smaller), and then there are packages. The available packages are several GBs (not sure how many), but I don't want them on the install media, because there are probably new versions available fixing security holes since the ISO was made (last Chromium vulnerab

The URL bar doesn't do tab-completion. It was reported as a wishlist bug to replace the non-useful "tab to search" feature and after a very long discussion got marked as "WONTFIX" because "the tab key is already overloaded". Yeah, thanks to you you fuckers. You have to take your fingers off the home keys and use the down arrow. Very frustrating, and I'm so used to hitting tab to go to URLs I forget, so the browser is unusable to me. You can't even configure it. there's no "keyboard shortcuts" panel.

You can embed evince [hyperlogos.org] (and presumably okular or whatever), which loads slightly more slowly and doesn't capture the Ctrl+F and Ctrl+P hotkeys (those will be picked up by the browser and not work), but has a few more features than the non-free PDF viewer by Google Chrome.

I've also had trouble getting the Chrome viewer to work consistently in Chromium. It repeatedly crashed or failed to load, requiring a browser restart. This could be related to version discrepancies, though, as I used the.so from Chrome 13 (

Puppy Linux has the non-google Chromium as its standard browser, and it works well for that compact distribution, but I do miss all the Firefox addons. Like Youtube downloaders, Flash video downloaders, NoScript, CW's video plugin to watch free shows, and so on.

Puppy Linux has the non-google Chromium as its standard browser, and it works well for that compact distribution, but I do miss all the Firefox addons. Like Youtube downloaders, Flash video downloaders, NoScript, CW's video plugin to watch free shows, and so on.

I'd sooner that Ubuntu stick with Firefox.

What's installed by default mostly affects new users who don't have a strong preference for particular applications. I'll continue to use Firefox whether or not it's installed by default on Ubuntu, since it will still be in the repositories. That's what I've already been doing with Thunderbird (Ubuntu's default mail program Evolution sucks) and Pidgin (Empathy isn't flexible enough).

Is it wise to run a browser (and when Chrome OS comes out, a full fledged operating system) pushed by the biggest advertising, tracking, and marketing company on the web? Wouldn't it be better to use something that does not have a vested interest in tracking everything you do online? Or is the source for this browser fully open so any nasty evil bits would be spotted by vigilant hackers and purged immediately?

Is it wise to run a browser (and when Chrome OS comes out, a full fledged operating system) pushed by the biggest advertising, tracking, and marketing company on the web?

Nice job vaguely insinuating that Google is bad. What specifically is Chromium doing that you dislike? They release full source, under Apache 2 for their code, GPL for Apple's webkit code. Development is done in the open (you can see every commit, code review, etc.).

Look at Mozilla's financials: 95% of their revenue is from Google. If it were not for Google funding them over the past 15 years, Firefox would be long dead, and the internet would be IE only. Linux would not have a usable web browser.

Wouldn't it be better to use something that does not have a vested interest in tracking everything you do online?

Let me know when one exists. As far as I know, the only other open option is made by Apple, and it's just a rendering library, so you will need to implement your own UI.

Or is the source for this browser fully open so any nasty evil bits would be spotted by vigilant hackers and purged immediately?

Chromium is "fully open" - Chrome is not. At least according to TFA, they're talking about Chrome. Nice job pretending they're the same thing*.

Both Chrome and Chromium have a single location bar that also acts as a search bar. That means when you enter any URL by default, it pings Google as you type. You can turn it off, but as many people have mentioned, defaults matter.

Even to the extent that the browser is fully open source, its primary function is to lead you to Google's closed-source cloud service

Exactly. Whether or not WebKit (and Safari/Chrome) existed, Konqueror wasn't going to just vanish without Mozilla. In fact, it may well have gotten more development support (it's already a good browser, but any project that big could use more contributors). Don't like KDE dependencies? Extract the rendering engine (KHTML, the base of WebKit) and put it in your own browser (which is pretty much what Apple did, plus maintaining their own version).

Say what you will about proprietary software, Opera is a pretty damn good browser and runs on Linux.

100% Agreed. Everyone keeps talking about Firefox's extensions and Chrome's speed. Opera has been right there with Chrome the whole way plus has the accelerator for lower bandwidth connections, the Unite package (which say what you will is a fantastic piece of kit) and by far the best RSS feeder I've seen. And on top of that, Opera's linux offering is always released at the same time as Windows & OSX.

Firefox is important not so much because it's another choice, as the fact it makes other choices possible. If Firefox hadn''t been successful on Windows, the web would, truly, have ended up being IE only, with all that entails. Firefox's success under Windows meant that other browsers, including Konqueror, stood a fighting chance of being able to render the web.

And, no, Apple coopting KHTML into WebKit, wouldn't have done the same thing because Apple wouldn't have done

Come on. If it were not for Google funding them over the past 15 years, somebody else would.

Really? Consider that both the #2 and #3 search engine is both powered by Microsoft, who'd clearly not want to break the IE dominance and most of open source would rebel at the idea. #4 is a tie between Ask Jeeves and Baidu with about 0.4% of the market, they wouldn't have the financial muscle.

Google has paid Mozilla very well to break IEs dominance, I think they've seen it just as much an investment as an expense. And in that, mission accomplished. But I find it unlikely that Google is that interested in f

Did you not know that most of Firefox's revenue comes from Google?And no vigilant hackers are not what we need. vigilant programmers are. If you bothered to look before you posted you find that Chromium is FOSS under the Apache 2 license. In other words this poast was a waste of electrons and sound like Microsoft level FUD.

Did you not know that most of Firefox's revenue comes from Google?And no vigilant hackers are not what we need. vigilant programmers are. If you bothered to look before you posted you find that Chromium is FOSS under the Apache 2 license. In other words this poast was a waste of electrons and sound like Microsoft level FUD.

My post was about Chrome (which is what I was sure this article was about). I had honestly never heard of Chromium until now. I will check it out sometime when the whim strikes or if Firefox/Iceweasel ever stop being useful to me. And my line about vigilant hackers was merely for dramatically silly effect. Nothing more.

And despite what other posters in this thread mistakenly assumed, I was not insinuating that Google is evil and should be avoided at all costs (I reserve that honor to Sony. Heh). No, I

"I had honestly never heard of Chromium until now."So you posted from the point of ignorance." And my line about vigilant hackers was merely for dramatically silly effect. "So you feel that emotional manipulation is useful tactic.So your post combines ignorance with the level of arrogance that cause you to feel that manipulation is needed to inform those that are not as wise you.When dealing with technical issues it is better to use facts and not manipulation.

Why contemplate Google Chrome? Dump the Google branding and install Chromium instead. Still, Firefox has vastly more plug-ins which make browsing more bearable, which is why it has a bigger following. If only they could stop some of the plug-ins from being so damn slow.

The percentages are missing context. X% slower than what baseline? What hardware was it tested on? What version of the extension? When they post answers to those questions, that post *might* mean something.

On whether Chrome will replace Firefox in Ubuntu: Not in the next year, at least.On companies wanting to own your personal data: It is a little scary.On Unity vs. Gnome 3: Clearly, some people like Unity and some really don't.On whether Canonical doesn't contribute enough to the kernel: That's not true.On why he doesn't own a smartphone: Because he hasn't bought one. Yet.On why there's no Ubuntu tablet: Unity doesn't really work as a tablet interface.On getting everyone to use free software: It will be diff

On why there's no Ubuntu tablet: Unity doesn't really work as a tablet interface.

Wow, so there it is! He single-handedly pushes something designed for tablets to our desktops, only we all hate it here. Then someone thinks logically and wants to see if its original environment is any better barring the suspected "lost-in-translation syndrome"... only that he admits it's just as broken on tablets.

What was the progress made with Unity, then, other than hurt usage share? Then he goes on to mention Chrome/ium although non-geeks use Firefox. He's probably planning to whittle his ratio of Lin

Interesting that you thought that...it seems everybody on/. at least thought that. But has anyone at Canonical ever said that? I can't recall a statement like that. When you think about it, Unity is actually terrible as tablet UI. It borrows more ideas from OSX than iOS.

The Cloud is closed. Even more closed than all IBM's, Microsoft and Apples of this world ever have been. Does Mark realise that he makes his entire Ubuntu project obsolete by trusting The Cloud? We can just stick with the pre-installed Windows or OSX, if all our stuff is in that fucking Cloud. Actually would be more secure than using Googlezillas Spyware...

Which is why some people at Google have created the Data Liberation Front [dataliberation.org]. You should not feel safe using a cloud-based service unless you are able to download all of your data from the service whenever you like.

Offerings of particular service providers may or may not be closed, but "the cloud", itself, is not (in fact, "the cloud" is something that you can run yourself with open source software; Ubuntu Server even includes infrastructure for it in the form of Ubuntu Enterprise Cloud.)

Ubuntu is slipping out of control. Canonical have stopped listening and – more importantly – working with the community. The number of defects is growing, but Canonical’s response is to make it harder for mere mortals to submit bugs. They seem to think that strong guidance is needed for their product to grow in new and interesting ways. Fair enough, but they’re confusing leadership with control. They’re simply imposing their views because they don’t value the discussion. They’re treating criticism as opposition and shutting themselves off from valid feedback.

Worse, they simply don’t have the number of skilled developers they need to achieve their goals. When I look at the bug queues on some packages, I shudder in sympathy with the poor souls who are expected to wrangle them. Canonical is clearly embarked on an impossible task, but nobody’s either got the guts or the vision to spell this out to Shuttleworth and co.

Unity might be such a reason, but for browser change he's talking about a time frame past the 12.04 LTS release, more than a year from now. Chrome will be different then. And installing Firefox or most any other browser than is pretty easy to slap into Ubuntu for anyone who doesn't like Chrome. unlike doing desktop changes which does cause issues.

You've missed A LOT. They do use Ubuntu repos, for one version, however, they stuck with gnome 2, and a host of other better choices in the app stack. Then there's the Debian edition, the xfce edition.....

And every edition is superior to Ubuntu and every other distro on the market by leaps and bounds. You really need to get over there and check out Linux Mint right away. As of version 10 (it's currently at version 11), it is the best OS ever released, period, and I would easily put it up against any OS

One man show? There are more developers than Clem. And Clem always makes better decisions than Shuttleworth. According to most metrics Linux Mint is the #2 distro in the world, and growing fast. I don't think you gave it a thorough enough shot. It's more stable, faster, has a better default layout. It's got tons of advantages over every other distro I've tried. I install Linux Mint, I walk away and my client is happy indefinitely.

I find print-to-PDF works as a print preview, albeit less convenient. But for a long time Chrome couldn't print to anything but US letter, which was a showstopper for me. (My Firefox still resets the page size to US letter once in a while, for unknown reasons.) Frankly I find that printing sucks on every web browser I've used -- if I want a half-decent printout, I paste the content into an OOWriter document and tweak it by hand.

There are definitely some odd bugs still in Chrome regarding layout, since I use it side by side with Safari and they both share the same Webkit core (not literally on the machine, but both are webkit - you see what I mean), and I sometimes run across oddities in Chrome that necessitate me jumping over to Safari where they work fine.

Why? I don't run windows and I already use firefox. Did you notice I already said firefox was my default browser?

Do you know that it's a bug in Chrome and not in the website?

Why should I care? Firefox renders the website correctly and the website is part of enterprise software that existed long before Chrome. If it renders correctly on IE and Firefox, why should the website rewrite its code to conform to the new kid on the block?

Why should I care?... If it renders correctly on IE and Firefox, why should the website rewrite its code to conform to the new kid on the block?

It shouldn't. It should rewrite its code to conform to the very old w3c standards, and then consider browser-specific hacks when something's broken. "Works best on Firefox" is no better than "Works best on IE", and every time a site does that, it's holding back development of the Web and web browsers.

That's why I asked, and that's why you should care. If the bug is in Chrome, then you and this website can safely ignore it, though the Chromium developers would probably appreciate a bug report. If the bug is

I don't notice that much speed difference on my systems at work or home. I have enough headroom in my CPU when I'm not doing massive data processing that I believe even the slowest benchmarked web browser wouldn't be noticeable. I do have a netbook that I carry around with me, and Firefox 4 hasn't been noticeably slow on that one either.

I'm not advocating against Chrome (or Chromium). I just stated a reason why I stick with firefox. As for bug reports, unless the Chrome team know and have access to Deltek,

Acid3 is nothing but a single measure of performance. It is useful when you want to create a benchmark that allows you to advertise how compatible your browser is to the upcoming or very current web standard. It doesn't measure the backward compatibility of that browser. One of the criteria for choosing a browser is "does it work with the websites that I need to visit?". I'm sure there are plenty of Google fans and geeks that insist on using the latest big thing to keep Chrome around. But for us old guys th

I tried switching to Chrome for a month. I kept using IE 9 and Firefox 4.

Problems1. Can't select my common websites with a mouse click within the address bar like IE, Firefox,... hell even netscape 1.0.- This drives me up the wall! I hate typing in the url each time I want to visit slashdot. Sure in Windows 7 I can right click the icon, but slashdot is not in the top 6 sites I visit and is not listed. This is not optional in MacOS or Linux2. Why should I go into settings/preferences just to access my bookm

Before they implement Print Preview, they might want to fix the actual printing first. Try printing out a slashdot or wikipedia article in Chrome and compare the results to Firefox. The amount of paper it uses is ridiculous.

I agree the placement of the extension icons is a bit ridiculous. They should really be put into their own menu.

Shuttleworth should much more rely on what users want, instead of making decisions for users.

Canonical can tell what users want based on usage statistics. Once close to 30-50% of users post-install Chrome or Unity, with a growing trend, then consider making these things the default. Until then, keep the old, tried and true the default.

Even if this happens, which I think it might, I am still going to use Firefox. Firefox 4 is awesome, and I do like Chorme, but then again I also like Opera since version 10 and I still use Firefox as it just works for me.

This really is bad news, Chrome is a dreadful browser with its missing menus and propensity for phoning home every few minutes. The experience of trying Chrome on Windows, where it secretly installed two services to keep itself updated, and a hidden scheduled task to reinstall the services, has convinced me that no free software project should have any kind of association with Google whatever.

Everytime I use Chrome (or indeed have an article comparing Firefox to Chrome anymore) I learn to abhor it that little bit more.

If chrome were a car it would 'upgraded' to a different model every six months, while they slowly pulled out your manual transmission for an automatic, accelerator for cruise control, steering wheel for google maps integration, brakes for collision detection, windshield for a blank screen, all while for some godawful reason telling you how good you have it why would you need any of

Everytime I use Chrome (or indeed have an article comparing Firefox to Chrome anymore) I learn to abhor it that little bit more.

If chrome were a car it would 'upgraded' to a different model every six months, while they slowly pulled out your manual transmission for an automatic, accelerator for cruise control, steering wheel for google maps integration, brakes for collision detection, windshield for a blank screen, all while for some godawful reason telling you how good you have it why would you need any of those to drive.